![]() Since his Russian is better than mine (and probably his English too, for that matter) I'm willing to take him at his word. Nabokov maintained that it was absolutely impossible to render Pushkin's Russian verse into English verse in a way that's even remotely true to the original. The first version I read was Nabokov's more-or-less literal non-rhyming version. I think there may be another discussion somewhere else about this. (And that Nabokov is almost erasing Pushkin as he's rescuing him.) But they're invaluable for some of the nuances – as when he discusses all the Russian words for silence, for different sounds of water moving in rivers, rivulets etc, and the Russian words for langorousness. Nabokov's long notes are also interesting if you can get beyond the petty score settling. ![]() ![]() Tatiana's letter has a different fate and Tatiana's dream is much more wide ranging than that in the ballet. Pushkin himself is a character (maybe three times over). Its tone is different – more like Jane Austen, and it's generally more complex. ![]() The novel is different from the ballet, which was a very controversial abridgement. I also read the James Falon Oxford Classics translation alongside it, more sparkling but you may miss some important details due to formal contraints. Nabokov's translation is more relaxed and accurate than other, rhymed versions. ![]() I liked the Nakokov version of Eugene Onegin and the notes, at least the shorter "Structure & Genesis of Eugene Onegin", were very helpful. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |